People would pay more for a coin approved by both PCGS and CAC precisely BECAUSE it was approved by both. Two opinions are worth more to most people than just one of those two opinions, even if they value one more than the other. Just because someone values the CAC opinion more doesn't mean they don't value the PGCS opinion at all. If there is no legacy designation then there would be little incentive for people to submit stickered coins to CAC Grading, and PCGS/CAC would trade at a premium to just CAC.
I think the one exception is the prestige and added value a plus from a CACG graded coin might have over the PCGS/CAC sticker. Do you agree?
Not to belabor the Legacy label but, the reported CACG application of the + will be more liberal than PCGS or NGC with 1/3 or more of CACG graded coins earning a +.
So, many Legacy coins will be + graded by CACG but were not + graded at PCGS or NGC. That further muddies the waters because some collectors will assume if it's a Legacy coin with a CACG+ then it must have been a PCGS or NGC + when it was not. And is other cases perhaps it was! On high dollar coins that can be a major value difference.
I'm with Chlorinated, the Legacy label will do more harm than good to future collectors while opening a wide avenue for questionable value applications.
I’m in agreement that all the slab does for me is protect the coin. While there are price differences between PCGS & NGC coins I think there are exceptions to this rule for early type. While I prefer PCGS I do buy the coin and not the holder so I have some nice NGC coins. I only plan to send a few NGC stickered coins to CACG because the slabs are scuffed up and these particular coins might benefit value wise from not being in an NGC holder. I also would like to see where these few coins flush out per “A” or “B” status which is a big benefit of crossing coins to CACG.
@VanHalen , to your point but something you did not say - MANY of the CACG coins not Legacy WILL have plus grades, as they came from defect-free "C" coins in the next higher grade number - i.e. defect-free 65 "C", will now be 64+ (non Legacy) in a CACG holder.
People would pay more for a coin approved by both PCGS and CAC precisely BECAUSE it was approved by both. Two opinions are worth more to most people than just one of those two opinions, even if they value one more than the other. Just because someone values the CAC opinion more doesn't mean they don't value the PGCS opinion at all. If there is no legacy designation then there would be little incentive for people to submit stickered coins to CAC Grading, and PCGS/CAC would trade at a premium to just CAC.
I think the one exception is the prestige and added value a plus from a CACG graded coin might have over the PCGS/CAC sticker. Do you agree?
Not to belabor the Legacy label but, the reported CACG application of the + will be more liberal than PCGS or NGC with 1/3 or more of CACG graded coins earning a +.
So, many Legacy coins will be + graded by CACG but were not + graded at PCGS or NGC. That further muddies the waters because some collectors will assume if it's a Legacy coin with a CACG+ then it must have been a PCGS or NGC + when it was not. And is other cases perhaps it was! On high dollar coins that can be a major value difference.
I'm with Chlorinated, the Legacy label will do more harm than good to future collectors while opening a wide avenue for questionable value applications.
How do you know that 1/3 of CAC coins are of A quality and will get a plus with the new CACG holders?
People would pay more for a coin approved by both PCGS and CAC precisely BECAUSE it was approved by both. Two opinions are worth more to most people than just one of those two opinions, even if they value one more than the other. Just because someone values the CAC opinion more doesn't mean they don't value the PGCS opinion at all. If there is no legacy designation then there would be little incentive for people to submit stickered coins to CAC Grading, and PCGS/CAC would trade at a premium to just CAC.
I think the one exception is the prestige and added value a plus from a CACG graded coin might have over the PCGS/CAC sticker. Do you agree?
Not to belabor the Legacy label but, the reported CACG application of the + will be more liberal than PCGS or NGC with 1/3 or more of CACG graded coins earning a +.
So, many Legacy coins will be + graded by CACG but were not + graded at PCGS or NGC. That further muddies the waters because some collectors will assume if it's a Legacy coin with a CACG+ then it must have been a PCGS or NGC + when it was not. And is other cases perhaps it was! On high dollar coins that can be a major value difference.
I'm with Chlorinated, the Legacy label will do more harm than good to future collectors while opening a wide avenue for questionable value applications.
How do you know that 1/3 of CAC coins are of A quality and will get a plus with the new CACG holders?
It has been stated numerous times by CAC. It's also been stated that many C coins will go into + holders at the next lower grade. All A coins and many C coins downgrading to a lower grade + will easily be 1/3 if not more.
Noting whether it was formerly an NGC or a PCGS graded coin matters not imho. Knowing CAC previously considered it solid for the grade does matter. That’s the legacy issue for me.
But WHY does it matter? What possible difference does it make?
The more information I have as a buyer the better off I am. Having a legacy designation provides that.
But what do you gain by knowing what TPG graded the coin prior to CACG? What does the previous grade matter? If you trust CACG, then who cares if the coin was previously graded correctly or not? What does it gain you?
Noting whether it was formerly an NGC or a PCGS graded coin matters not imho. Knowing CAC previously considered it solid for the grade does matter. That’s the legacy issue for me.
But WHY does it matter? What possible difference does it make?
I know it really shouldn’t matter , but somehow it does 🤓🤤😂🤦🏻♂️
Slight bunny trail but let me get your opinion.
I see a decent looking 1911 D $10 indian ms 61 for sale but it’s not cac
Its a little pricey I think ( $8400 I can get it for $8200 ) If it were 60 CAC it would be worth the $8,200 +
Do you think if I got it and it won’t cac as a 61 that if I wait to let cacg grade it and it comes in as a 60 would the value be there ?
Another question if I may . Let’s say my 1928 Saint 66+ cac is graded by cacg and placed in a 66 slab , will there be a distinction between my 66+ cac and a coin that comes in that would be equivalent to a 66 cac ?
I’m sure JA and Cacg will work all that out.
In the meantime I think there are a lot of guys that want a legacy reference for coins they crossover . ( even if if it shouldn’t matter. Human nature I suppose )
I just don't understand why a picture of the coin in its previous holder won't suffice the desire to know what slab it was in before. If someone takes and cracks out that ms61 from a ngc holder and sends it to JA and it is now ms60 in a cac holder how will you or JA know for that matter? Why on earth take a cac sticker coin and cross it over anyway? It'll go right in the registry just like a cac coin. I wish I had the money to throw away buying expensive plastic. To throw it away and buy more? Ludicrous. I have a coin right now I paid express grading on to get it back before submissions were open again. And the day it was delivered the announcement was made about the grading service. I'm not even paying 35 to get that coin stickered. I'm not throwing money away. I certainly won't be crossing that coin either. If I get 20 submissions next year it might go in then. But not before then and not until.
Is CACs reasoning behind not accepting new membership based on the number of current members or on the volume of submissions they’re receiving? If it’s based on current member totals is there a way to see which of those members are no longer actively submitting? I’m sure there are some dealers and collectors that joined way back when CAC first started and haven’t submitted a coin in probably a decade. Can/should those memberships be terminated to open membership to new people?
Mr. JA asked what the question/issue was/is, and received a response. A few other persons on this forum had similar comments, and I am sure the Boss will answer when he has reviewed all aspects before answering.
My perspective is whether it is a good or bad decision for me personally, it is not the end of my life as I know it. I have Faith in the wisdom and Logic of the Boss. (That is how to suck up, Ladies and Gentlemen).
Is CACs reasoning behind not accepting new membership based on the number of current members or on the volume of submissions they’re receiving? If it’s based on current member totals is there a way to see which of those members are no longer actively submitting? I’m sure there are some dealers and collectors that joined way back when CAC first started and haven’t submitted a coin in probably a decade. Can/should those memberships be terminated to open membership to new people?
It is a valid thought, but I don't think it is helpful to terminate a person, as I think that is a bit negative.
Maybe a path would be to encourage active participation of such members, via an email of a general notice on the Forum to notify the Boss of their intentions, etc., and find out if they are still interested.
Some may be deceased, or not participating in the hobby anymore. Some may be dealers and just never notified CAC.
To me, termination based on a quota without prior announcement, may cause more of an issue than it solves, because it is possible those members that appear not as active submitting directly, could have been submitting via a dealer or an auction venue because it was/is more convenient.
Mr. JA asked what the question/issue was/is, and received a response. A few other persons on this forum had similar comments, and I am sure the Boss will answer when he has reviewed all aspects before answering.
My perspective is whether it is a good or bad decision for me personally, it is not the end of my life as I know it. I have Faith in the wisdom and Logic of the Boss.
(That is how to suck up, Ladies and Gentlemen).
Terminate current members? Makes perfect sense to me. We’ll just step aside and roll out the red carpet for you, no problem…
(This is not how to suck up, Ladies and Gentlemen. This is a perfect example of Get off my Lawn you little brats).
Open membership could be more easily managed with a quantity requirement.
5 coins?
10?
By valuation?
Having to find approved dealers to submit is clumsy and complicated.
I like you. Want to be my new best friend? The position comes with a pair of Daffy Duck PJs.
Is CACs reasoning behind not accepting new membership based on the number of current members or on the volume of submissions they’re receiving? If it’s based on current member totals is there a way to see which of those members are no longer actively submitting? I’m sure there are some dealers and collectors that joined way back when CAC first started and haven’t submitted a coin in probably a decade. Can/should those memberships be terminated to open membership to new people?
It is a valid thought, but I don't think it is helpful to terminate a person, as I think that is a bit negative.
Maybe a path would be to encourage active participation of such members, via an email of a general notice on the Forum to notify the Boss of their intentions, etc., and find out if they are still interested.
Some may be deceased, or not participating in the hobby anymore. Some may be dealers and just never notified CAC.
To me, termination based on a quota without prior announcement, may cause more of an issue than it solves, because it is possible those members that appear not as active submitting directly, could have been submitting via a dealer or an auction venue because it was/is more convenient.
There must be many that have either passed or are just no longer involved in the hobby, and why should they retain membership when there’s obviously high demand for membership?
I didn’t expect that they’re memberships would just be terminated, as someone so hastily assumed - how pessimistic of them, but rather a few emails be sent to that member asking if they still wanted to retain their membership, as you suggested. I assumed that would have been obvious. But you know what happens when you assume…
Comments
Not to belabor the Legacy label but, the reported CACG application of the + will be more liberal than PCGS or NGC with 1/3 or more of CACG graded coins earning a +.
So, many Legacy coins will be + graded by CACG but were not + graded at PCGS or NGC. That further muddies the waters because some collectors will assume if it's a Legacy coin with a CACG+ then it must have been a PCGS or NGC + when it was not. And is other cases perhaps it was! On high dollar coins that can be a major value difference.
I'm with Chlorinated, the Legacy label will do more harm than good to future collectors while opening a wide avenue for questionable value applications.
If it’s based on current member totals is there a way to see which of those members are no longer actively submitting?
I’m sure there are some dealers and collectors that joined way back when CAC first started and haven’t submitted a coin in probably a decade.
Can/should those memberships be terminated to open membership to new people?
5 coins?
10?
By valuation?
Having to find approved dealers to submit is clumsy and complicated.
My perspective is whether it is a good or bad decision for me personally, it is not the end of my life as I know it. I have Faith in the wisdom and Logic of the Boss.
(That is how to suck up, Ladies and Gentlemen). (This is not how to suck up, Ladies and Gentlemen. This is a perfect example of Get off my Lawn you little brats). I like you. Want to be my new best friend? The position comes with a pair of Daffy Duck PJs. It is a valid thought, but I don't think it is helpful to terminate a person, as I think that is a bit negative.
Maybe a path would be to encourage active participation of such members, via an email of a general notice on the Forum to notify the Boss of their intentions, etc., and find out if they are still interested.
Some may be deceased, or not participating in the hobby anymore. Some may be dealers and just never notified CAC.
To me, termination based on a quota without prior announcement, may cause more of an issue than it solves, because it is possible those members that appear not as active submitting directly, could have been submitting via a dealer or an auction venue because it was/is more convenient.
I didn’t expect that they’re memberships would just be terminated, as someone so hastily assumed - how pessimistic of them, but rather a few emails be sent to that member asking if they still wanted to retain their membership, as you suggested. I assumed that would have been obvious. But you know what happens when you assume…